See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328811844

Settling into the country: Comparison of Clovis and Folsom lithic networks in
western North America shows increasing redundancy of toolstone use

Article  in  Journal of Anthropological Archaeology · March 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.jaa.2018.10.004

CITATIONS READS

3 187

4 authors, including:

Brian Andrews David Kilby

Rogers State University Texas State University
20 PUBLICATIONS   184 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   200 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David Kilby on 25 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 53 (2019) 32–42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Settling into the country: Comparison of Clovis and Folsom lithic networks T
in western North America shows increasing redundancy of toolstone use
⁎
Briggs Buchanana, , Brian Andrewsb, J. David Kilbyc, Metin I. Erend,e
a
Department of Anthropology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 74104, United States
b
Department of Psychology and Sociology, Rogers State University, Claremore, OK 74017, United States
c
Department of Anthropology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666, United States
d
Department of Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, United States
e
Department of Archaeology, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, 44106, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Peopling of the Americas was a multi-millennium process involving both the hunter-gatherer colonization of
Clovis new landscapes as well as the ‘settling in’ to local environments. This process is typically identified archae-
Folsom ologically by an increase in the number of recognized point types, site frequency, changes in subsistence pat-
Lithic networks terns, and increased geographic patterning in stone tool variation. Here, we add to this list by examining pre-
Network density
ferential toolstone use by Clovis and Folsom peoples, reasoning that Folsom groups formed stricter habits of
Regional adaptation
toolstone procurement relative to Clovis people as the former pursued their increasingly familiar seasonal
rounds. After generating lithic raw material data from 49 Folsom assemblages, we constructed a ‘Folsom lithic
network’ that we compared to a ‘Clovis lithic network’, which consisted of 38 assemblages. Our results show that
the Folsom lithic network is significantly denser than the Clovis lithic network. These results are consistent with
the hypothesis that Folsom people started to form regular habits of toolstone procurement relative to Clovis
people. More broadly, our comparison of lithic networks further supports the hypothesis that the Clovis-to-
Folsom transition represents the process of foragers increasingly adapting to their local resource distribution.

1. Introduction more on intra-regional networks (e.g. Anderson, 1995; Eren et al.,

Archaeologists have long suggested that over the course of the late
Pleistocene and early Holocene hunter-gatherer populations across the
North American continent were becoming increasingly adapted to, and
‘settling in’ to, local environments (Koldehoff and Walthall, 2004;
Meltzer, 2009; Tune, 2016; see also papers in Anderson and Sassaman,
1996; Graf and Schmitt, 2007; Vierra and Bousman, 2012). This process
of ‘settling in’ or ‘regionalization’ was likely driven by population
growth and local landscape learning, and is supported archaeologically
by an increase in site frequency and projectile point styles, a con-
comitant decrease in the spatial extent of culturally diagnostic artifacts,
shifts in core technology and unifacial tool design and use-life, and
changes in subsistence patterns (Andrews et al., 2015; Jennings, 2015;
Jennings et al., 2010; Justice, 1987, 2002a, 2002b; Vierra and
Bousman, 2012). It is also generally held that as populations adapted
regionally and grew in numbers the need to maintain distant social
contacts for mating purposes and information exchange, among other
things, was reduced; instead, locally adapted populations began to rely
2015; Meltzer, 2009).
The archaeological record of the late Pleistocene in the American
West is broadly consistent with the settling in process as described
above. People bearing the Clovis culture (∼13,400–12,700 calendar
years before present [calBP]; Sanchez et al., 2014; Surovell et al., 2016)
shared point styles and stone tool production techniques (Bradley et al.,
2010; Buchanan et al., 2014, 2016a, 2017; Sholts et al., 2012; Waters
et al., 2011). After Clovis, there was a flourishing of regional point
styles, and distinctive adaptive strategies across the West (Amick, 1996;
Asher, 2016; Blackmar, 2001; Jennings, 2012; Justice, 1987, 2002a,
2002b). The “best known and most readily recognizable” (Meltzer,
2002:41) of these styles is represented by the Folsom culture
(12,610–12,170 calBP; Surovell et al., 2016), which appeared over a
geographically smaller area than Clovis, namely on the Plains, in the
Rocky Mountains, and across portions of the Southwest (Anderson
et al., 2010; Andrews et al., 2008). Archaeological evidence indicates
that, unlike Clovis (Jennings, 2015), Folsom peoples on the Plains had a
subsistence strategy tied to the exploitation of the now-extinct species

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: briggs-buchanan@utulsa.edu (B. Buchanan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2018.10.004
Received 22 January 2018; Received in revised form 11 September 2018
0278-4165/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
B. Buchanan et al.
Bison antiquus (Amick, 1996; Hofman, 1999, 2002; Kelly and Todd,
1988; Meltzer, 2002, 2006),1 and were the first Paleoindian culture “to
establish full- time residence throughout the Great Plains and per-
iphery” (Jennings, 2016:121). In the Great Plains, Folsom reliance on
bison in turn necessitated high residential mobility and large home
ranges (Amick, 1996; Hofman, 1999, 2002; Kelly and Todd, 1988),
though the degree to which this is true of the Rocky Mountains is de-
batable (e.g., Andrews, 2010, Andrews et al., 2008). Clovis people were
likely less residentially mobile overall, instead focusing on logistical
mobility to and from base camps (Waters et al., 2011; Jennings, 2012)
and logistical strategies such as caching (Kilby and Huckell, 2013).
Another difference between Clovis and Folsom is their stone core re-
duction strategies. Clovis knappers, less concerned with minimizing
transport weight due to their decreased long-distance residential mo-
bility, generally produced bifacial cores and both conical and wedge-
type prismatic blade cores wherever they were. On the other hand,
Folsom knappers appear to have been more concerned with minimizing
transport weight due to their high residential mobility, using bifacial
cores on the Southern Plains, but discoidal and amorphous cores in the
Rocky Mountains and Northern Plains (Jennings et al., 2010; see also
Jennings, 2016). Indeed, Folsom points and butchering tools appear to
have been predominately made for transport and designed to be ready
to execute specific tasks when needed (Ahler and Geib, 2000; Amick,
1994; Hofman, 1991, 1992, 2003; Hunzicker, 2008; Surovell, 2009).
In sum, there are archaeologically observable developments in land
use, subsistence patterns, and stone tool technology during the Early
Paleoindian period (Clovis and Folsom) in the American West that are
consistent with the hypothesis that groups were settling into their
landscape. One aspect of this transition that has received less attention
is that of the patterns or habits associated with toolstone preference and
use. If Folsom groups were more settled into their landscapes than
Clovis people had been, it then follows that they should have more
consistently used a specific set of lithic raw materials. In other words,
Folsom people should have had stricter habits of toolstone procurement
relative to Clovis people, as the former pursued their increasingly fa-
miliar seasonal rounds across a landscape that had been inhabited by
several previous generations.
To test this hypothesis of increasing habitual use of toolstone, we
generated data on shared lithic raw materials from 49 Folsom sites and
constructed a Folsom lithic network, which was then subsequently
compared to an updated Clovis lithic network, previously reported by
Buchanan et al. (2016). Networks constructed from distinct toolstone
types shared among assemblages track the connections between sites
with respect to the lithic raw materials people acquired, either directly
from the outcrop or indirectly from trade (e.g., Buchanan et al., 2016;
Golitko et al., 2012; Golitko and Feinman, 2015; Mills et al., 2013;
Phillips, 2011). The denser the network, the more patterned re-
dundancy is indicated for exploitation of specific toolstone sources.
Thus, to state our hypothesis more formally, if Folsom foragers were
relatively more settled in and adapted to their landscape than were
Clovis foragers, then we predict that the Folsom lithic network will be
denser than the Clovis lithic network.
1
Although there is substantial evidence to suggest Folsom people were, on
the whole, bison-hunting specialists, more recent, detailed, regional-level
analyses have suggested that Folsom subsistence and settlement were more
regionally and seasonally diverse than once thought. Folsom diet appears to
have varied by habitat with sites in valleys and in the Rocky Mountain region
containing a diverse diet that included small game, whereas on the Plains the
diet consisted primarily of bison (Cannon and Meltzer, 2008; Hill, 2007, 2008;
Kornfeld and Larson, 2008). Similarly, Folsom land use varied by habitat and
may have been structured more by the availability of non-subsistence resources
such as water, wood, and high-quality toolstone rather than the locations of
bison (Andrews et al., 2008).
33
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 53 (2019) 32–42
2. Materials and methods
We generated lithic raw material data from Folsom assemblages
associated with discrete Folsom occupations (either sites with only
Folsom assemblages, or those with stratigraphically discrete Folsom
assemblages). Folsom lithic assemblages were included in our analyses
if information on the associated lithic raw material was published, the
assemblage contained diagnostic Folsom points, and the assemblage
was not significantly mixed with earlier or later materials. We had to
determine the latter condition from assessments made in the literature
and in a few cases we included assemblages that contained non-Folsom
diagnostic materials, but there was good reason to suspect that the non-
Folsom diagnostics were intrusive or that the assemblage was mixed but
only the diagnostic Folsom material was included in this study.
Following these conditions we were able to record lithic raw material
information from 49 Folsom assemblages (see Supplementary Materials
Table 1). The Folsom sites are documented across the Great Plains,
Rocky Mountains, and portions of southwestern North America (Fig. 1).
We relied primarily on published identifications of lithic types and
sources, although we made first hand identifications for some of the
assemblages. The Folsom lithic source attributions were almost ex-
clusively made by visual inspection (including the use of ultraviolet
light as an identification aid for a few particular sources, e.g., Hofman
et al., 1991). In contrast to research on Clovis lithic assemblages, we did
not find studies that used trace element analysis to identify types of
stone used in Folsom assemblages (see Buchanan et al., 2016). For some
lithic sources trace element analyses can provide objective data on the
identification of geologic source (e.g., Boulanger et al., 2015; Huckell
et al., 2011). Thus, the lithic source identifications we use have the
potential to be verified in the future using objective methods.
We gathered raw material identifications for all of the lithics in the
Folsom assemblages in our dataset, including all tools and debitage if
they could be confidently associated to a Folsom occupation. The
Folsom assemblages in our dataset varied in size and one potential
problem in making comparisons among assemblages of different sizes is
that richness is sample size dependent (e.g., Baxter, 2001; Buchanan
et al., 2017), thus comparing the raw material types represented in the
Folsom assemblages could be subject to sample size effect. Un-
fortunately, there is also no straightforward way to make equivalent
counts of lithic assemblages without confronting the problems of
equivalency and breakage among tools and debitage. We therefore
decided to take another approach. For each Folsom assemblage we at-
tempted to obtain an estimate of the total excavated area associated
with each occupation and we correlated these estimates with node
degree (see below). For a significant sample size effect we expect a
strong correlation between area excavated and node degree. We were
able to obtain estimates of area excavated for 40 of the Folsom as-
semblages in our dataset; we could not find excavated areas for nine
sites (Adair-Steadman, Elida, Indian Creek, Krmpotich, MacHaffie, Owl
Cave/Wasden, Salt Creek, Winkler-1, and Zapata). Our analysis showed
that there is no significant correlation among area and node degree
(Spearman’s rank correlation rs = 0.158, p = 0.323), suggesting that
larger Folsom areas do not yield assemblages with a greater diversity of
raw material types as would be consistent with a sample size effect.
In addition to the Folsom lithic network we constructed a lithic
network for 38 western Clovis assemblages to compare with the Folsom
network (Fig. 2). The western Clovis network includes 35 lithic as-
semblages reported in a previous study (Buchanan et al. 2016) and
three new assemblages (CW, Muñiz, 2014; JS, Bement, 2014; Mahaffy,
Bamforth, 2014) that were not included in that study. The western
Clovis lithic network includes assemblages from sites west of the Mis-
sissippi and covers most of the Great Plains, Southwest, and portions of
the Rocky Mountains. It should be noted that we incorporate a number
of cache sites into the Clovis network, and that this site type (as far as
we know) is altogether absent among Folsom sites. We believe that the
presence or absence of cache sites represents a difference in the
B. Buchanan et al.
organization of lithic resource use between Clovis and Folsom, but does
not differently reflect the specific resources that were in use by each. In
other words, we do not believe this difference in organization affects
the results of our comparison.
Network methods have been developed in various disciplines to
analyze and visualize data on parts or components of systems that are
linked together in some way (Newman, 2010). In archaeology, network
analyses of shared lithic raw materials has shed light on problems in
various geographic settings and from different time periods (e.g.,
Golitko et al., 2012; Golitko and Feinman, 2015; Mills et al., 2013;
Phillips, 2011). Here, we constructed networks using the identified
sources of stone raw materials in our sample of 49 Folsom lithic as-
semblages and 38 Clovis lithic assemblages. Assemblages were desig-
nated as nodes (also known as vertices; Newman, 2010) in our analyses
with shared lithic raw materials between nodes connected by edges. We
constructed lithic networks with symmetric, undirected edges among
nodes indicating shared stone types, meaning that if two assemblages
share a raw material type they are connected by an edge. To visualize
34
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 53 (2019) 32–42
Fig. 1. Map of Folsom sites with lithic as-
semblages used in the analyses. Key: 1, Hot
Tubb; 2, Chispa Creek; 3, Debra L. Friedkin;
4, Gault; 5, Shifting Sands; 6, Winkler-1; 7,
Scharbauer (Locality 1); 8, Lone Butte; 9,
Adair-Steadman; 10, Lubbock Lake (FA
6–8); 11, Elida; 12, Blackwater Draw; 13,
Mitchell Locality (BWD); 14, Lake Theo; 15,
Salt Creek; 16, Martin; 17, Deann’s; 18, Rio
Rancho; 19, Boca Negra Wash; 20,
Lipscomb; 21, Badger Hole; 22, Cooper
(upper kill); 23, Cooper (middle kill); 24,
Cooper (lower kill); 25, Waugh; 26, Jake
Bluff; 27, Folsom; 28, Linger; 29, Zapata; 30,
Cattle Guard; 31, Reddin; 32, Black
Mountain; 33, Mountaineer; 34, Westfall;
35, Barger Gulch (Locality B); 36,
Lindenmeier; 37, Rattlesnake Pass; 38,
Krmpotich; 39, Hell Gap; 40, Agate Basin;
41, Owl Cave/Wasden; 42, Carter/Kerr-
McGee; 43, Rocky Foolsom; 44, Two Moon
Shelter; 45, Hanson; 46, Indian Creek; 47,
MacHaffie; 48, Bobtail Wolf; 49, Big Black.
network graphs we used NetDraw version 2.089 (Borgatti, 2002). For
our visualization we employed the spring embedding method using
geodesic distances and 100 iterations, although we should note that the
particular layout criteria we use do not impact the measures we report
below they are simply the constraints we imposed to visualize the
networks. We carried out several analyses on the lithic networks using
Ucinet version 6.232 (Borgatti et al., 2002). First, we determined the
presence of network components and isolates and then we calculated
measures of the structure of the networks including network average
density, degree, and betweenness. The average density of a network is
the proportion of all possible ties to actual ties in a network. Networks
with higher densities are better connected and materials and informa-
tion flow more easily within denser networks (Hanneman and Riddle,
2005). Degree is the number of edges for a given node and betweenness
is a measure of the number of times a node occurs on a geodesic, or
shortest path among nodes (Freeman, 1979; Newman, 2010). Degree
and betweenness measure the importance of individual nodes in a
network; degree importance increases with the number of edges and
B. Buchanan et al. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 53 (2019) 32–42

Fig. 2. Map of Clovis sites with lithic assemblages used in the analyses. Key: 1, Pavo Real; 2, Hogeye; 3, De Graffenried; 4, Gault; 5, Naco; 6, Lehner; 7, Murray
Springs; 8, Keven Davis; 9, Yellow Hawk; 10, Mockingbird Gap; 11, Blackwater Draw; 12, Dickenson Cache (BWD); 13, Green Cache (BWD); 14, Domebo; 15,
Demolition Road; 16, Anadarko; 17, Miami; 18, Calvin Graybill #1; 19, JS; 20, Jake Bluff; 21, Sailor-Helton; 22, Busse; 23, Mahaffy; 24, Watts; 25, Drake; 26, Fenn;
27, Franey; 28, Simon; 29, Sheaman; 30, Colby; 31, Crook County; 32, Anzick; 33, Beach.

betweenness importance increases with the number of shortest paths
that cross a particular node.
3. Results
Below we describe the Folsom lithic network in terms of the com-
ponents represented, average density, degree, and betweenness. We
then compare the Folsom lithic network to an updated lithic network
for western Clovis.
3.1. Description of the Folsom lithic network
We recognized 43 different types of raw material in the Folsom
assemblages. Thirty-seven of the raw materials have known geologic
sources and six had unknown geologic sources. The six raw materials
with unknown geologic sources—including a chert, chalcedony,
quartzite, basalt, petrified wood, and felsite material—were varied and
indistinct and could not confidently be identified in more than one
assemblage. As such these materials were not used in the network
analyses. The most common types of raw materials in Folsom assem-
blages were cryptocrystalline sedimentary rocks including materials
identified as chert, agate, jasper, and chalcedony. These materials
comprise 31 of the 43 (72.1%) different materials in the sample, fol-
lowed by different types of quartzite (11.6%), petrified wood (7%),
obsidian (4.7%), and one basalt (2.3%) and felsite (2.3%). As crypto-
crystalline sedimentary rocks and obsidian are generally considered to
be raw materials that seem to be preferred by modern flintknappers
(Buchanan and Collard, 2010; Eren et al., 2014), it is noteworthy that

35
B. Buchanan et al. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 53 (2019) 32–42

Fig. 3. The Folsom lithic network comprised of 49 assemblages and four components with 3 isolates (shown in blue) and one component with multiple nodes (shown
in red). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Folsom hunter-gatherers also relied on these lithic raw materials
(76.8% of the raw material types used).
The network analysis of the Folsom lithic data identified four
components: three components are isolated assemblages (McHaffie,
Mountaineer, and Rattlesnake Pass) and one component has multiple
nodes (n = 46; Fig. 3). The component with multiple nodes, hereafter
referred to as the ‘Folsom lithic network’, has an average density of
0.467 and an average degree of 21. The nodes are clustered somewhat
by latitudinal band with more southerly assemblages trending toward
the right and more northerly assemblages trending toward the left in
Fig. 4. Assemblages from Wyoming and Montana form a cluster on the
left side of the Folsom lithic network and are only connected to the
assemblages to the south by three assemblages, primarily through
Lindenmeier, Westfall, and Folsom. The connection of the assemblage
from the Folsom type site to the north is tentative: both Meltzer (2006)
and LeTourneau (2000) identified an artifact made of Hartville Uplift

Fig. 4. The Folsom lithic network comprised of 49 assemblages and four components showing nodes colored by latitudinal bin (yellow = 30–34°; orange = 35–39°;
light blue = 40–44°; dark blue = 45–50°). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

36
B. Buchanan et al.
Fig. 5. Histogram of degree for each of the nodes in the Folsom lithic network.
chert in the assemblage which it shares with assemblages in Montana,
Wyoming, and Colorado. Removing this edge from the Folsom lithic
network effects the position of the Folsom assemblage, but does not
alter the overall results.
The degree of each of the node in the Folsom lithic network is
shown in Fig. 5. The distribution of degree is bimodal with one peak
centered on 5 and the other on 30. The assemblages with higher mea-
sures of degree primarily are found in the southern latitudes (between
30 and 40°) and the assemblages with the lower measures of degree are
primarily found in the northern latitudes (between 40 and 50°; Fig. 6).
The exception is the Lindenmeier assemblage. Lindenmeier has the
highest degree (38) and is connected to many assemblages in the north
and south. Lindenmeier also is exceptional in terms of its betweenness
score (304), which is more than an order of magnitude greater than the
average betweenness score (14.6; Fig. 7). The distribution of be-
tweenness measures is positively skewed with a long tail to the right
Fig. 6. The Folsom lithic network (n = 46) showing nodes colored by latitudinal bin (yellow = 30–34°; orange = 35–39°; light blue = 40–44°; dark blue = 45–50°)
and sized by degree. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
37
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 53 (2019) 32–42
Fig. 7. Histogram of betweenness for each of the nodes in the Folsom lithic
network.
(Fig. 7) and Lindenmeier is situated at the extreme end of this tail. The
network with nodes sized by betweenness suggests the importance of
the Lindenmeier site (Fig. 8).
3.2. Comparison of the Folsom and western Clovis lithic networks
A total of 41 different raw materials were recognized in the updated
western Clovis assemblages. Most of these raw materials (36 or 87.8%)
have known geologic sources and five had unknown geologic sources.
The materials with unknown sources included four different cherts and
one quartzite. The most common types of raw materials in western
Clovis assemblages were cryptocrystalline sedimentary rocks including
materials identified as chert, agate, jasper, and chalcedony (70.7%),
followed by different types of quartzite (12.2%), obsidian (7.3%), sili-
cified wood (4.9%), and one quartz (2.4%) and silicified limestone
B. Buchanan et al.
Fig. 8. The Folsom lithic network (n = 46) showing nodes colored by latitudinal bin (yellow = 30–34°; orange = 35–39°; light blue = 40–44°; dark blue = 45–50°)
and sized by betweenness. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
(2.4%). Thirty-three of the 41 raw materials used by western Clovis
groups were “preferred” raw materials such as cryptocrystalline sedi-
mentary rocks, obsidian, or silicified wood (80.5%).
The western Clovis network includes 38 assemblages with 5 com-
ponents. Three of the components are isolates (East Wenatchee, Kincaid
Rockshelter, and Lange-Ferguson), one component consists of two as-
semblages (CW and Eckles), and the fifth component, hereafter referred
to as the ‘western Clovis lithic network’, has 33 nodes. Similar to the
Folsom lithic network, the western Clovis lithic network is separated
into clusters of assemblages in northern latitudes and assemblages in
southern latitudes (Fig. 9). The average density of the western Clovis
lithic cluster is 0.288 and the average degree is 9.21. Both measures are
much smaller than the same measures for the Folsom lithic network.
The Folsom network has an average density of 0.467 and an average
degree of 21. Histograms comparing the distributions of the degree of
the nodes, adjusted for the number of nodes in the component, shows
that the Folsom lithic network has a wider span and nodes with higher
degrees relative to Clovis (Fig. 10). The results of a Mann-Whitney non-
parametric two-sample test indicates that the median degree of Folsom
nodes is significantly greater than Clovis (z = −3.19, p = 0.001).
Comparing the distributions of betweenness measures for the nodes in
the western Clovis and Folsom lithic networks shows that both are
positively skewed, but the western Clovis network has more assem-
blages with high betweenness measures (Fig. 11). However, results of a
Mann-Whitney test shows that the median betweenness for western
Clovis and Folsom is not significantly different (z = −0.216,
p = 0.829).
3.3. Preferential attachment?
We investigated the possibility that some assemblages in our Early
Paleoindian dataset were richer in terms of lithic raw materials based
on preferential attachment, or cumulative advantage, relative to other
assemblages (Barabási and Albert, 1999; Newman, 2010). Preferential
attachment suggests that during the growth of a network the initial
nodes may have higher degrees than subsequent newer nodes simply as
a function of being first. Thus, assemblages from some Folsom sites in
38
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 53 (2019) 32–42
our dataset that also contain Clovis occupations may have higher
measures of degree due to preferential attachment. Similarity in the
types of raw materials used among these multiple occupations might be
a result of knowledge of the local landscape and source locations being
passed down through the generations. The benefit of preferential at-
tachment also may come from the reuse of a location where lithic
materials were previously deposited or lost. This situation might have
occurred when Folsom foragers returned to the spot of a Clovis occu-
pation and found suitable lithic material to use at the site.
To examine preferential attachment we first determined the number
of Folsom occupations that occurred in the same location as a Clovis
occupation. Only four sites in our dataset have a Folsom occupation in
the same area as a Clovis occupation, although multiple Clovis and
Folsom occupations are found at some of these locations (including
Blackwater Draw and the Mitchell Locality, Gault and Debra L.
Friedkin, Agate Basin and Sheaman, and Jake Bluff sites).2 The ex-
pectation is that the Folsom assemblages that were deposited in the
same area as Clovis assemblages should have higher node degrees re-
lative to the other Folsom assemblages. Investigation of the distribution
of Folsom degree by node shows that this is not the case. The range of
node degree measures associated with Folsom nodes is 2–38 with a
mean of 21 and a median of 27; two of the sites, Jake Bluff and Hell Gap
have node degrees below the mean (17 and 5, respectively) and the
2
Three locations in the dataset have Clovis and Folsom occupations that were
found in the same general area. At the Blackwater Draw site in New Mexico
multiple Clovis and Folsom locations were occupied. The Clovis assemblages
include mammoth and bison kill locales in the bottom of the draw and two
caches (the Green and Dickenson) found in the surrounding walls. The Folsom
occupations at Blackwater Draw are a bison kill site recovered stratigraphically
above the Clovis kills and a Folsom campsite (the Mitchell Locality) located on
the adjacent uplands. The Gault and Debra L. Friedkin sites are located several
hundred meters apart on the same drainage, Buttermilk Creek, in central Texas.
The Gault and Debra L. Friedkin locales have both Clovis and Folsom strati-
graphically separated occupations. Gault also has a Clovis cache, the De
Graffenried cache. Lastly, the Sheaman Clovis occupation is located in the vi-
cinity of the Folsom occupation at the Agate Basin site.
B. Buchanan et al. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 53 (2019) 32–42

Fig. 9. Western Clovis lithic network showing nodes colored by latitudinal bin (red = 25–30°; yellow = 30–34°; orange = 35–39°; light blue = 40–44°; dark
blue = 45–50°). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

other two sites Blackwater Draw and Gault have assemblages with node found in the same locations as Clovis it appears that the cumulative
degrees that are above the mean, but not in the top four (degree: advantage of reusing Clovis locations had not become important during
Blackwater Draw 29, Mitchell Locality 32, Gault 27, Debra L. Friedkin Folsom times. Future research directed toward comparing the relative
27). Given the distribution of degree measures for the Folsom nodes proportions of site reoccupation from different time periods and regions

Fig. 10. Histograms of the proportional degree for nodes in the western Clovis and Folsom lithic networks.

39
B. Buchanan et al.
Fig. 11. Histograms of the proportional betweenness for nodes in the western Clovis and Folsom lithic networks.
may reveal if preferential attachment to locations yield the hypothe-
sized cumulative advantages.
4. Discussion
Folsom hunters are considered to have had extensive home ranges
and relied on cryptocrystalline stone raw materials. The lithic network
we constructed from shared toolstones in Folsom assemblages bears this
out and shows the use or exchange of such stone types across large
regions of the Folsom range. There does not appear to be any barrier in
the shared use of similar lithic materials across the Plains and Rocky
Mountains regions of the Folsom range. Sites located between 30 and
39° latitude on the Southern Plains and New Mexico and southern
Colorado are densely-connected and show that Folsom groups across
this broad southern area used or exchanged many of the same high-
quality lithic sources. The dense connectivity of the lithic network also
suggests that Folsom groups in this area knew the landscape well from
firsthand experience or information exchange. Folsom sites located
above 40° latitude are connected to sites in the south through only a few
sites and primarily through the Lindenmeier site in Colorado.
Lindenmeier has the highest betweenness measure and was likely re-
peatedly occupied by Folsom groups who came together on a seasonal
basis (Andrews et al., 2008; Wilmsen and Roberts, 1978). However, the
stone raw materials used in the north and the south do not mix except
in two cases: the Folsom assemblage has an artifact that is tentatively
identified as Hartville Uplift chert (Meltzer, 2006) and the Westfall
assemblage has Tongue River Silcrete. Both are raw materials that are
found in northern assemblages and their sources are located in
Wyoming and Montana. The northern Folsom assemblages (40–50° la-
titude) located in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and Idaho are less
densely connected than assemblages in the south and they have lower
betweenness measures. This may in part be a consequence of the fewer
number of sites and the greater distance between sites in the north
40
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 53 (2019) 32–42
versus the south, but also the colder, less productive environment of the
north likely supported a smaller population that had to move greater
distances to procure resources (Hamilton et al., 2016).
We compared the Folsom lithic network to the western Clovis lithic
network to investigate how they changed during the late Pleistocene
when populations were growing and purportedly adapting to regional
environments. The choice of which particular stone sources were used
varied somewhat between the Clovis and Folsom period. Clovis and
Folsom groups used 41 and 43 different types of recognizable raw
materials, respectively, but shared only 20 of these raw material
sources in common. In many cases the use of different raw materials by
Clovis and Folsom is in areas where one or the other does not occur, for
example Clovis sites in Arizona, and Folsom sites in North Dakota, are
both places where local raw materials are used by the respective po-
pulations. While approximately half of the raw materials are not shared
among Clovis and Folsom, the proportions of the different types of raw
materials used by Clovis and Folsom groups were not significantly
different. We carried out two tests to determine if the proportions of
different types of raw materials used by Clovis and Folsom were similar.
In the first we used eight categories of raw material type (chert in-
cluding jasper, agate, and chalcedony, obsidian, quartzite, quartz,
petrified wood, basalt, felsite, and silicified limestone) and used Fisher’s
exact test to assess differences. We found no differences in the pro-
portions of different lithic types used (χ2 = 4.42; Fisher’s exact
p = 0.973). In the second, we carried out a chi-square analysis using
four broad categories of raw material (chert, obsidian, quartz and
other), the results also indicated no significant difference among Clovis
and Folsom raw material choice (χ2 = 4.42; p = 0.73). Thus, the types
of stone raw materials chosen by Clovis and Folsom do not differ sig-
nificantly and both Clovis and Folsom primarily used “preferred” raw
materials (80.5% and 76.8%, respectively). This finding suggests that
the settling in process did not include a significant discovery compo-
nent for stone raw materials. Rather, it seems that by the end of the
B. Buchanan et al.
Clovis period most of the important sources of lithic material had been
found and were in use.
Next, we compared the structure of the western Clovis and Folsom
lithic networks. The prediction derived from the settling in hypothesis
was that the Folsom lithic network should be more densely connected
than the western Clovis network. This prediction was supported by our
analyses. The Folsom network included more assemblages than the
western Clovis network, this might be a consequence of population
growth through this time sequence, but the comparisons we made were
corrected for the number of nodes in the two datasets. The nodes in the
Folsom lithic network had a greater average density, average degree,
and median degree compared to the Clovis lithic network. Thus, the
Folsom network was better connected than the western Clovis network.
One might be tempted to argue that Folsom groups exchanged raw
materials more often with neighbors than did Clovis groups, and that
increased trade can explain the greater Folsom connectedness.
However, given that the Folsom period lasted about four centuries, it is
unknown how many, if any, of the Folsom sites with connections were
contemporaneous. Another possible explanation is that the geographic
scale over which Folsom sites occur is smaller than that of Clovis. If this
were the case, the higher Folsom network density could simply be ex-
plained from the use of a more constricted set of stone types. Yet, im-
portantly, given our sample of sites, the Folsom lithic network is at the
same geographic scale as the western Clovis network. Thus, the most
parsimonious and straightforward interpretation is to take the network
results at face value: the higher density in the Folsom lithic network
suggests that each Folsom site is more likely to share a set of stone raw
materials with another Folsom site, than is any Clovis site with another
Clovis site. In other words, our results are consistent with the hypoth-
esis that Folsom groups started to form stricter habits of toolstone
procurement relative to Clovis as the former pursued their increasingly
familiar seasonal rounds in their increasingly familiar landscape. As
such, it fits a pattern of greater redundancy in land use among Folsom
than among Clovis.
Our findings support other research on the Clovis-to-Folsom tran-
sition on the Great Plains. In particular, Jennings’ (2015) study com-
pared the size of the prey items taken by both Clovis and Folsom, the
season in which kills were made, the spatial distribution of points by
state, and the types of stone tool reduction used by the two different
complexes. Taken together these lines of evidence suggested to
Jennings (2015) that Folsom groups were residentially mobile and the
first population to live on the plains year-round. In contrast, he sug-
gested that Clovis groups lived on the peripheries of the plains and used
the plains seasonally during logistical trips for resources. This differ-
ence between Folsom and Clovis described by Jennings (2015) also
provides a possible explanation for the increasing redundancy of tool-
stone use by Folsom relative to Clovis. The difference in the preferred
toolstone use by Folsom can be attributed to their committed year-
round use of the plains. More broadly, our results, along with sub-
sistence and lithic technological evidence presented by Jennings
(2015), support the hypothesis that the Clovis to Folsom transition re-
presents an evolution from colonizing hunter-gatherers to foragers in-
creasingly settled in to their landscape.3
This latter point is worth emphasizing, and speaks to several issues
regarding the interpretation of foragers as either colonizing or non-
colonizing (cf. Kitchel, 2016). First, the transition from colonizing
hunter-gatherers to more settled ones – i.e. the process of landscape
learning – is a relative one. Of course Clovis colonizing hunter-gatherers
had some landscape knowledge, and likely possessed more than any
3
We acknowledge that the term “settling-in” has been used in differing ways
by various authors. Specifically, Anderson (1996) uses the term to refer to in-
creased durations of occupation at individual locations. Our use of the term is
not directly related to this understanding, and refers to increased residential
mobility within a limited geographic range.
41
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 53 (2019) 32–42
hypothesized earlier Paleoindian groups not bearing fluted projectile
points; however, they possessed relatively less landscape knowledge
than subsequent Paleoindian groups, like Folsom. Second, interpreting
Clovis as more tied to the colonization process (Ellis, 2011) than later
groups is based on several lines of evidence taken together: chronology;
site distribution and site density over space and time; subsistence;
technology; and, as we show here, toolstone-use patterning. Lastly, it is
important to ensure that the archaeological predictions of a more “co-
lonizing” or more “settled” forager designation make sense theoreti-
cally. Failure to consider all three of these axioms may lead to skewed
perspectives or invalid conclusions about prehistoric forager coloniza-
tion, Paleoindians, and, more generally, the peopling of the Americas.
With a view to future research on this topic we hope that further
work to enhance both the Folsom and western Clovis lithic databases is
undertaken. Both networks are working hypotheses and will un-
doubtedly be added to and modified in the future. It is already clear
that some regions have better samples than others and that further data
collection in these regions with sparse data will improve this research.
For example, the northern latitudes of the Folsom region have fewer
sites than the southern latitudes. Future research should also further
explore the connections among Folsom assemblages using other data-
sets. One of the most obvious datasets to explore next are Folsom
points, which at least superficially appear to show differences in shape
and form across their geographic spread. Networks built on the simi-
larities of point forms found at assemblages were recently used in an
analysis of Clovis (Buchanan et al., 2017) and a similar approach could
be undertaken for Folsom. A Folsom point network constructed on the
basis of similarities in point forms would reveal the underlying learning
and/or social interaction processes that underpin point manufacture.
This Folsom point network could then be compared with the Folsom
lithic network to determine if the same components exist or if con-
nections of similar points form smaller components.
Acknowledgements
This manuscript's title was inspired by the 1988 article in American
Antiquity “Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and
Mobility” by Robert Kelly and Lawrence Todd, who graciously allowed
us to borrow from it, again (see Andrews et al., 2015). We thank Ver-
onica Mraz for her help generating the Folsom raw material data and
Sean Farrell for creating the map figures. BB thanks the University of
Tulsa Faculty Development Summer Research Program. BB and MIE are
supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF Awards #1649395,
1649406, and #1649409). MIE is also supported by the Kent State
University College of Arts and Sciences.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2018.10.004.
References
Ahler, S.A., Geib, P.R., 2000. Why flute? Folsom point design and adaptation. J. Archaeol.
Sci. 24, 799–820.
Amick, D.S., 1994. Folsom Diet Breadth and Land Use in the American Southwest.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of New
Mexico, Albuquerque.
Amick, D.S., 1996. Regional patterns of Folsom mobility and land use in the American
Southwest. World Archaeol. 27, 411–426.
Anderson, D.G., 1995. Paleoindian interaction networks in the eastern woodlands. In:
Nassaney, M.S., Sassaman, K.E. (Eds.), Native American Interaction: Multi-Scalar
Analyses and Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands. University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, pp. 1–26.
Anderson, D.G., 1996. Models of Paleoindian and Early Archaic settlement in the lower
Southeast. In: Anderson, D.G., Sassaman, K.E. (Eds.), The Paleoindian and Early
Archaic Southeast. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 29–57.
Anderson, D.G., Sassaman, K.E. (Eds.), 1996. The Paleoindian and Early Archaic
Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Anderson, D.G., Miller, D.S., Yerka, S.J., Gillam, J.C., Johanson, E.N., Anderson, D.T.,
B. Buchanan et al.
Goodyear, A.C., Smallwood, A.M., 2010. PIDBA (Paleoindian Database of the
Americas) 2010: current status and findings. Archaeol. East. North Am. 38, 63–89.
Andrews, B.N., 2010. Folsom Adaptive Systems in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado:
An Analysis of the Mountaineer Site. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of
Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.
Andrews, B.N., LaBelle, J.M., Seebach, J.D., 2008. Spatial variability in the Folsom ar-
chaeological record: a multi-scalar approach. Am. Antiq. 73, 464–490.
Andrews, B.N., Knell, E.J., Eren, M.I., 2015. The three lives of a uniface. J. Archaeol. Sci.
54, 228–236.
Asher, B.P., 2016. Across the Central Plains: Clovis and Folsom land use and lithic pro-
curement. PaleoAmerica 2, 124–134.
Bamforth, D.B., 2014. Clovis caches and Clovis knowledge of the North American land-
scape: the Mahaffy cache, Colorado. In: Huckell, B.B., Kilby, J.D. (Eds.), Clovis
Caches: Recent Discoveries and New Research. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque, pp. 39–60.
Barabási, A.L., Albert, R., 1999. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286,
509–512.
Baxter, M.J., 2001. Methodological issues in the study of assemblage diversity. Am. Antiq.
66, 715–725.
Bement, L.C., 2014. The JS cache: Clovis provisioning the southern Plains late Pleistocene
landscape. In: Huckell, B.B., Kilby, J.D. (Eds.), Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries and
New Research. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 61–77.
Blackmar, J.M., 2001. Regional variability in Clovis, Folsom, and Cody land use. Plains
Anthropol. 46, 65–94.
Borgatti, S.P., 2002. NetDraw: Graph Visualization Software. Analytic Technologies,
Harvard.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., Freeman, L.C., 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software for
Social Network Analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard.
Boulanger, M.T., Buchanan, B., O'Brien, M.J., Redmond, B.J., Glascock, M.D., Eren, M.I.,
2015. Neutron activation analysis of 12,900-year-old stone artifacts confirms
450–510+ km Clovis tool-stone acquisition at Paleo Crossing (33ME274), northeast
Ohio, U.S.A. J. Archaeol. Sci. 53, 550–558.
Bradley, B., Collins, H., Hemmings, A., 2010. Clovis Technology. International
Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.
Buchanan, B., Collard, M., 2010. A geometric morphometrics-based assessment of blade
shape differences among Paleoindian projectile point types from western North
America. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 350–359.
Buchanan, B., Collard, M., O’Brien, M.J., 2014. Continent-wide or region-specific? A
geometric morphometrics-based assessment of variation in Clovis point shape.
Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 6, 145–162.
Buchanan, B., Hamilton, M.J., Kilby, J.D., Gingerich, J.A.M., 2016. Lithic networks reveal
early regionalization in Late Pleistocene North America. J. Archaeol. Sci. 65,
114–121.
Buchanan, B., Chao, A., Chiu, C.H., Colwell, R.K., O’Brien, M.J., Werner, A., Eren, M.I.,
2017. Environment-induced changes in selective constraints on social learning during
the peopling of the Americas. Sci. Rep. 7, 44431.
Cannon, M.D., Meltzer, D.J., 2008. Explaining variability in early Paleoindian foraging.
Quat. Int. 191, 5–17.
Ellis, C., 2011. Measuring Paleoindian range mobility and land-use in the Great Lakes/
Northeast. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 30, 385–401.
Eren, M.I., Roos, C.I., Story, B.A., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., Lycett, S.J., 2014. The role of
raw material differences in stone tool shape variation: an experimental assessment. J.
Archaeol. Sci. 49, 472–487.
Eren, M.I., Buchanan, B., O'Brien, M.J., 2015. Social learning and technological evolution
during the Clovis colonization of the New World. J. Hum. Evol. 80, 159–170.
Freeman, L.C., 1979. Centrality in social networks. Social Netw. 1, 215–239.
Golitko, M., Feinman, G.M., 2015. Procurement and distribution of Pre-Hispanic
Mesoamerican obsidian 900 BC-AD 1520: a social network analysis. J. Archaeol.
Method Theory 22, 206–247.
Golitko, M., Meierhoff, J., Feinman, G.M., Williams, P.R., 2012. Complexities of collapse:
the evidence of Maya obsidian as revealed by social network graphical analysis.
Antiquity 86, 507–523.
Graf, K.E., Schmitt, D.N. (Eds.), 2007. Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic?: Great Basin Human
Ecology at the Pleistocene/Holocene Transition. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Hamilton, M.J., Lobo, J., Rupley, E., Youn, H., West, G.B., 2016. The ecological and
evolutionary energetics of hunter-gatherer residential mobility. Evol. Anthropol. 25,
124–132.
Hanneman, R.A., Riddle, M., 2005. Introduction to Social Network Methods. University of
California, Riverside.
Hill, M.E., 2007. A moveable feast: variation in faunal resource use among central and
western North American Paleoindian sites. Am. Antiq. 72, 417–438.
Hill, M.E., 2008. Variation in Paleoindian fauna use on the Great Plains and Rocky
Mountains of North America. Quat. Int. 191, 34–52.
Hofman, J.L., 1991. Folsom land use: projectile point variability as a key to mobility. In:
Montet-White, A., Holen, S. (Eds.), Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric
Hunter-Gatherers. Publication in Anthropology. University of Kansas, Lawrence, pp.
336–355.
Hofman, J.L., 1992. Recognition and interpretation of Folsom technological variability on
the Southern Plains. In: Stanford, D.J., Day, J.S. (Eds.), Ice age hunters of the Rockies.
Denver Museum of Natural History and University of Colorado Press, Niwot, pp.
193–224.
Hofman, J.L., 1999. Unbounded hunters: Folsom bison hunting on the Southern Plains
circa 10,500 BP, the lithic evidence. In: Jaubert, J., Burgal, J., David, F., Enloe, J.G.
(Eds.), Le Bison: Gibier et Moyen de Subsistance des Hommes du Paleolithique aux
Paleoindiens des Grandes Plains. Editions APCDA, Antibes, pp. 383–415.
Hofman, J.L., 2002. High points in Folsom archaeology. In: Clark, J.E., Collins, M.B.
(Eds.), Folsom Technology and Lifeways. Special Publication No. 4. Lithic
Technology, Tulsa, pp. 399–412.
42
View publication stats
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 53 (2019) 32–42
Hofman, J.L., 2003. Tethered to stone or freedom to move: Folsom biface technology in
regional perspective. In: Soressi, M., Dibble, H.L. (Eds.), Multiple Approaches to the
Study of Bifacial Technologies. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology
and Anthropology, Philadelphia, pp. 229–249.
Hofman, J.L., Todd, L.C., Collins, M.B., 1991. Identification of central Texas Edwards
chert at the Folsom and Lindenmeier sites. Plains Anthropol. 36, 297–308.
Huckell, B.B., Kilby, J.D., Boulanger, M., Glascock, M., 2011. Sentinel Butte: neutron
activation analysis of White River Group chert from a primary source and artifacts
from a Clovis cache in North Dakota, USA. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 965–976.
Hunzicker, D.A., 2008. Folsom projectile technology: an experiment in design, effec-
tiveness and efficiency. Plains Anthropol. 53, 291–311.
Jennings, T.A., Pevny, C.D., Dickens, W.A., 2010. A biface and blade core efficiency ex-
periment: implications for Early Paleoindian technological organization. J. Archaeol.
Sci. 37, 2155–2164.
Jennings, T.A., 2012. Clovis, Folsom, and Midland components at the Debra L. Friedkin
site, Texas: context, chronology, and assemblages. J. Archaeol. Sci. 39, 3239–3247.
Jennings, T.A., 2015. Clovis adaptations in the Great Plains. In: Smallwood, A., Jennings,
T. (Eds.), Clovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding. Texas A&M University Press,
College Station, pp. 277–296.
Jennings, T.A., 2016. The impact of stone supply stress on the innovation of a cultural
variant: the relationship of Folsom and Midland. PaleoAmerica 2, 116–123.
Justice, N.D., 1987. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern
United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Justice, N.D., 2002a. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin.
Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Justice, N.D., 2002b. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Southwestern United
States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Kelly, R.L., Todd, L.C., 1988. Coming into the country: early Paleoindian hunting and
mobility. Am. Antiq. 53, 231–244.
Kilby, J.D., Huckell, B.B., 2013. Clovis caches: current perspectives and future directions.
In: Graf, K., Goebel, T., Waters, M. (Eds.), PaleoAmerican Odyssey. Center for the
Study of the First Americans. A&M University, College Station, Texas, pp. 257–272.
Kitchel, N.R., 2018Kitchel, in press. Questioning the visibility of the landscape learning
process during the Paleoindian colonization of northeastern North America. J.
Archaeol. Sci.: Rep (in press).
Koldehoff, B., Walthall, J.A., 2004. Settling in: hunter-gatherer mobility during the
Pleistocene-Holocene transition in the central Mississippi Valley. In: Cantwell, A.,
Conrad, A., Reyman, J. (Eds.), Aboriginal Ritual and Economy in the Eastern
Woodlands: Essays in Honor of Howard Dalton Winters. Illinois State Museum
Scientific Papers. Springfield, pp. 49–72.
Kornfeld, M., Larson, M.L., 2008. Bonebeds and other myths: Paleoindian to Archaic
transition on North American Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. Quat. Int. 191,
18–33.
LeTourneau, P.D., 2000. Folsom Toolstone Procurement in the Southwest and Southern
Plains. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of
New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Meltzer, D.J., 2002. What do you do when no one's been there before? Thoughts on the
exploration and colonization of new lands. In: Jablonski, N. (Ed.), The First
Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World. California Academy of
Sciences, Los Angeles, pp. 27–58.
Meltzer, D.J., 2006. Folsom: New Archaeological Investigations of a Classic Paleoindian
Bison Kill. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Meltzer, D.J., 2009. First Peoples in a New World: Colonizing Ice Age America. University
of California Press, Berkeley.
Mills, B.J., Clark, J.J., Peeples, M.A., Haas Jr., W.R., Roberts Jr., J.M., Hill, J.B., Huntley,
D.L., Borck, L., Breiger, R.L., Clauset, A., Shackley, M.S., 2013. Transformation of
social networks in the late pre-Hispanic US Southwest. Proc. National Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 110, 5785–5790.
Muñiz, M.P., 2014. Determining a cultural affiliation for the CW Cache from northeastern
Colorado. In: Huckell, B.B., Kilby, J.D. (Eds.), Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries and
New Research. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 107–132.
Newman, M.E.J., 2010. Networks–An Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Phillips, S.C., 2011. Networked Glass: Lithic Raw Material Consumption and Social
Networks in the Kuril Islands. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of
Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.
Sanchez, G., Holliday, V.T., Gaines, E.P., Arroyo-Cabrales, J., Martínez-Tagüeña, N.,
Kowler, A., Lange, T., Hodgins, G.W., Mentzer, S.M., Sanchez-Morales, I., 2014.
Human (Clovis)–gomphothere (Cuvieronius sp.) association ∼13,390 calibrated yBP
in Sonora Mexico. Proc. National Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 10972–10977.
Sholts, S.B., Stanford, D.J., Flores, L.M., Wärmländer, S.K.T.S., 2012. Flake scar patterns
of Clovis points analyzed with a new digital morphometrics approach: evidence for
direct transmission of technological knowledge across early North America. J.
Archaeol. Sci. 39, 3018–3026.
Surovell, T.A., 2009. Toward a Behavioral Ecology of Lithic Technology: Cases from
Paleoindian Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Surovell, T.A., Boyd, J.R., Haynes Jr., C.V., Hodgins, G.W., 2016. On the dating of the
Folsom complex and its correlation with the Younger Dryas, the end of Clovis, and
megafaunal extinction. PaleoAmerica 2, 81–89.
Tune, J.W., 2016. The Clovis-Cumberland-Dalton succession: settling into the midsouth
United States during the Pleistocene to Holocene transition. PaleoAmerica 2,
261–273.
Vierra, B.J., Bousman, C.B. (Eds.), 2012. From the Pleistocene to the Holocene: Human
Organization and Cultural Transformations in Prehistoric North America. Texas A&M
University Press, College Station.
Waters, M.R., Pevny, C.D., Carlson, D.L., 2011. Clovis Lithic Technology: Investigation of
a Stratified Workshop at the Gault site, Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College
Station.
Wilmsen, E.N., Roberts, F.H.H., 1978. Lindenmeier, 1934–1974: Concluding Report on
Investigations. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.